Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:49:01 -0400 From: Josh Ockert <torstenvl@gmail.com> To: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Subject: Re: Demon license? Message-ID: <126eac48050719114950ae03bd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ffc52b3e81ea1e49098f627c45e69fdb@chrononomicon.com> References: <126eac480507181053398deebe@mail.gmail.com> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNKEAJFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <126eac480507190836313fe1d8@mail.gmail.com> <ffc52b3e81ea1e49098f627c45e69fdb@chrononomicon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/19/05, Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> wrote: >=20 > On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote: >=20 > >> Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to > >> consider any position different than your own. I am at least > >> willing to continue to discuss it. > > > > No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your > > complete lack of disrespect. >=20 > I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you > punk! (ha ha..touche'!) Oops. > > You are a troll. You go on and on, > > misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just > > generally adding nothing to the discussion. >=20 > That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a > number of times. Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered > down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out > to do nothing but cause trouble. This is no longer how the word is > used now apparently. It is a generic term used towards anyone with > whom one has a disagreement with online. No. I disagree with your apparent position. But I think you were respectful. I wouldn't call you a troll. > >> Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when > >> people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked > >> a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that > >> his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word. > > > > Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said > > in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts. >=20 > Technically, votes !=3D facts. When talking about the opinions of the majority of users, votes are facts. Seeing as how Ted has never helped me, my impressions of him come entirely from within the context of this thread. If you'll refer to his original posting it was very inflammatory. Unless I'm mistaken, intentionally trying to get a rise out of people is trolling. I kinda thought this came out of a fishing metaphor. Ted is the one who made the assertion, that those who don't have a problem with the new logo are in the minority. That is his assertion. And the burden of proof *is* on him to prove it. My guess is that it may seem that way because the majority of people who are indifferent or even happy about the new logo steer clear of these heated threads on the subject. With that, I'm done. Have fun. Ciao. --=20 Josh Ockert WMU Student: French Linguistics, Computer Science --=20 The irony in biblical creationists' rhetoric of implicitly claiming that God's universe is so inconsistent that carbon decays at erratic rates is too delicious to ignore.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?126eac48050719114950ae03bd>